STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVANAND B. MAGADUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the application and the impugned show cause notices and the charge memos are quashed with the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the delinquent officials in accordance with Rule 14-A of The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCA Rules' for short).

(2.) We have heard Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned AGA appearing for the petitioners and Prof. Raviverma Kumar, Senior Counsel with Sri. J. Prashanth, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners by the learned AGA was that all employees were the Officers of the Government and therefore the Government had power to initiate enquiry under Rule 11, after receipt of the investigation report from Lokayukta. He submitted that the provisions of Rule 14-A (2)(a)(iii) uses the word "may" and therefore discretion is left to the Government to direct inquiry into the cases which have been investigated by the Lokayukta. But as per the learned AGA, either the inquiry may be entrusted to Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta or the Government itself may hold an enquiry. As per the learned AGA, high power committee was constituted and thereafter the show cause notices and the charge memos are issued under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. He submitted that therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the inquiry has to be initiated by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be, in a matter where investigation is made by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be.